Irregardless of whatever slogan the marketing department comes up with, a corporation only has allegiance to the shareholders. They are required by law to make all decisions with the benefit of the shareholders as priority one.
If a loan can't be paid the bank is obligated to take whatever steps are necessary to mitigate damages for the shareholders. If that means seizing assets then so be it.
Not to get religious but there is a well known and respected book that states; "the borrower is servant to the lender". The shareholders are considered lenders to the corporation and the corporation/bank is the lender to the RV company. Carriage is at the bottom of the hierarchy.
Even if you are on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there.
- Will Rogers, American actor
I think this is why "OCCUPY WALL STREET" protests are springing up in the major citys of this country....Corporate Greed and big bonuses even when companys go bankrupt and golden parachutes seem to me is in part what is wrong with our economy....
And today's banksters and not the same bankers of by gone years. I watched in the 1990's from the inside while banks got deregulated. Before that everyone made a "nice" decent living as a banker.
Until someone is willing to put regulations back in place and start breaking up these super large corporations nothing is going to change. 1 verses 99 will only get further out of balance.
Chris
My Rig
2001.5 2500 STD CAB AUTO SLT 4x4, CTD 4:10's, Bomb'd to Tow
2005 Cardinal 29WBLX.
Seems to me that Carriage had a loan with National City. And when PNC took over National City, they had different critieria for acceptable loans. Carriage tried to restructure their loan. But with new banking regulations, due partly bailouts, etc., PNC's criteria was more "onerous". And Carriage could not fill the new criteria. So Carriage and PNC could not get together going forward. Given that fact, Carriage had their loan called by PNC. Carriage had no other lenders, that they could get the needed financial help from. Obviously, Carriage didn't have what they needed to secure alternative financing. And they did look for others to pick up the ball.
Regarding the article, it seems as though it is slanted toward the Carriage side of the story. As has most of previous public communications too. So we see mostly the Carriage managements take on the issues. But not so much from the PNC side of the story. And bottom line is Carriage management hasn't done what they needed to keep the company running. And not had the cash reserves to invest in their future. Or, for what ever reason, to help themselves find alternative lenders to keep their cash flow going. Seems like management has fallen short of their duties to their company, their suppliers, and their employees.
And all the talk about the bailouts? I am NOT a fan of the bank bailouts either. But those are PNC issues, and our gov't mis-management issues. While these may have a downstream affect on Carriage, they are not really Carriage concerns. And to throw those issues into the article are Carriages way to blame or distract away from the real issues of marginal Carriage management.
Why not blame the Gov't? They are the cause of the banking problems, and also the cause of the fuel crisis, AND the recession affecting the RV industry, and any US manufacturing for that matter. Many RV manufacturers have felt the negative affects. While other RV manufacturers have managed their companies to survive and are doing much better now.
'12 F350 SB, CC, SRW, 6.7 PSD, 3.55 RAR, 6 spd auto, Ultimate Lariat pkg
2011 Open Range 393RLS 14,250 GVWR
Pullrite Super Glide 18K
Why not blame the Gov't? They are the cause of the banking problems, and also the cause of the fuel crisis, AND the recession affecting the RV industry, and any US manufacturing for that matter. Many RV manufacturers have felt the negative affects. While other RV manufacturers have managed their companies to survive and are doing much better now.
And history will show someday that this started in the early 1980's!
i dont think pnc did anything wrong. Carriage couldn't pay their bills and so goes the business. I feel bad for the employees, but I would put the blame on the owner of Carriage, not PNC. You shouldn't borrow money you can't pay back.
Yeah, nice one-sided story here as originally posted. All I can say on the PNC side is that there are plenty of counter-arguments in their favor. Yes, they are a humungous regional bank, much more so after the National City acquisition, but better managed than most. National City had a ton of bad debts on its books, which took it to the brink of failure, and as I recall, PNC was strongly encouraged by the government to take over NCB (so as to avoid the disruption to the nation's financial system of such a large bank failure), even to the extent of being offered TARP money to finance most of the acquisition. On that topic, many banks were essentially forced to take TARP "bailouts" and the many conditions that came with them, because the Fed wanted to make sure that they were sufficiently capitalized to avoid default.
As to Carriage's own culpability in this situation, others here have said it well. I have little sympathy for any businesses or individuals who default on their debts, then blame the "big bad banks" for wanting their money back.
Mike and Trish
2008 Mandalay 43A
2008 Jeep Liberty on Blue Ox towbar
Yorkiepoos - Janis and Jimi
benbovac wrote: i dont think pnc did anything wrong. Carriage couldn't pay their bills and so goes the business. I feel bad for the employees, but I would put the blame on the owner of Carriage, not PNC. You shouldn't borrow money you can't pay back.
Exactly.
Carriage put their own employees out of work by borrowing money they could not pay back.
If PNC ignored this debt and others they would eventually put their employees out of work.09
Sarver, PA/Crystal River, FL/Shelocta, PA · W3TLN · FMCA 335149 · Mystic Knights of the Sea
2005 Suncruiser 38R · W24 chassis, no chassis mods needed · 2012 Honda Accord EX-L · 2008 Honda Odyssey EX-L
So by the reasoning posted already, we should have let GM and Chrysler fail as well. That would not have been good for the tens of thousands of workers that would have been affected. My opinion is that if the government is not willing to help EVERY company in trouble, they shouldn't help ANY company in trouble----banks included. So it was OK for the banks to take taxpayer's money to save themselves, only to turn around and screw their account holders with extra fees, higher payments, etc?
Offline
.jpg)
